To amend sections 125.25, 153.02, and 5513.06 of the Revised Code regarding the debarment of state vendors.
SB 76 revises Ohio’s debarment rules for vendors and contractors that seek state business. It amends three separate statutes governing debarment by the Department of Administrative Services, the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, and the Department of Transportation. Across those agencies, the bill expands and standardizes the grounds for debarment to include conduct such as bid manipulation, failure to perform contracts, failure to cooperate with contract monitoring, bribery or corruption-related offenses, antitrust violations, false statements, and certain criminal convictions tied to contract performance or business integrity. It also adds language allowing debarment based on admissions in civil proceedings or settlement agreements involving racketeering-related violations, and in some cases extends debarment to affiliated partners, officers, or directors.
The bill also formalizes notice-and-hearing procedures under Chapter 119 of the Revised Code, requires agencies to notify affected vendors or contractors of proposed debarment and the grounds for it, and sets a debarment term of not less than one year and not more than three years. During the debarment period, the affected party is barred from state contracting or bidding, and each agency must maintain a list of currently debarred entities. For transportation contracts, the bill also clarifies that affiliated entities of a debarred individual may be excluded from bidder lists or contract awards, and that debarment lists may be used in responsibility determinations for public construction awards.
Overall, the bill appears aimed at strengthening procurement integrity and giving state agencies clearer, more uniform authority to exclude vendors and contractors that engage in fraud, corruption, collusion, or repeated poor performance. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess from debate or roll call history. The bill’s text itself suggests a policy preference for stricter enforcement and broader discretion for procurement officials.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the debarment triggers and the discretion given to agency heads. The bill expands mandatory and permissive debarment grounds in ways that could affect vendors based on criminal pleas, civil admissions, or determinations of unsatisfactory business practices, which may raise due process or fairness concerns for contractors. Another possible issue is the extension of debarment consequences to related partners, officers, directors, or affiliated entities, which could be viewed as necessary to prevent circumvention but also as potentially overinclusive. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability, anti-corruption, and protecting public funds, while critics may focus on the risk of overly broad exclusion from public work.
SB 76 would amend sections 125.25, 153.02, and 5513.06 of the Revised Code to expand and harmonize Ohio’s vendor and contractor debarment framework across state procurement, public construction, and transportation contracting. It would increase the range of misconduct that can trigger debarment, add explicit references to corruption, antitrust, and racketeering-related admissions, and authorize exclusion of related business principals in some cases. The bill also reinforces notice, hearing, and recordkeeping requirements and preserves a one- to three-year debarment period, affecting vendors, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and manufacturers that do business with the state.
No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition from the record. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed as a procurement-integrity and anti-fraud reform, which suggests a generally pro-enforcement posture. The absence of recorded debate means the public or legislative sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s apparent intent to tighten state contracting standards.
The likely contention centers on how far the state should go in excluding vendors from public work. Opponents could object to the expanded grounds for debarment, especially provisions tied to broad findings of unsatisfactory business practices, civil admissions, or settlement agreements, and to the ability to reach affiliated partners, officers, directors, or related entities. Supporters would likely argue that these tools are needed to prevent repeat misconduct, protect taxpayer dollars, and ensure fair competition in state contracting. The bill also gives agency directors substantial discretion over debarment decisions and duration, which may be another point of concern.